Editorial: Prop. 21 would preserve parks for tomorrow

From the fog-cloaked fern country of Prairie Creek Redwoods to the stark badlands of Anza-Borrego Desert, from the crowded SoCal surf beaches to the isolated canoe-in campgrounds of Ahjumawi Lava Springs, California’s state parks encompass some of the most beautiful spots in what it’s no boast to say is America’s most beautiful state.

These parks aren’t locked away, accessible only to a privileged few, but welcome every Californian. They’re here to enjoy today and tomorrow.

But will tomorrow’s families be able to enjoy them?

Not if erosion forces the closure of trails down to our beaches or up to scenic mountain views. Not if splintery old picnic tables and clogged bathroom pipes make campgrounds unusable. Not if leaking roofs rot fragile historic buildings such as Weaverville’s Joss House.

California’s state parks have long operated under lean budgets in a state where the public’s will to preserve precious natural and historical sites does not always translate into the discipline to adequately fund the upkeep. The parks’ staffs have done a commendable job of making the most of tight resources — often aided by local volunteer associations — but the recent state budget crisis has pushed the parks to the edge.

Despite dramatically higher entrance fees, operating hours and days have been cut. Rangers — both to keep the peace and guide visitors — are scarce. Rural parks have had to scramble just to keep toilet paper in the bathrooms.

But a solution is at hand. It’s called Proposition 21.

This initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot is selling a product — slightly higher car-registration fees — that many voters will be understandably wary of buying, this year especially. But it’s a good deal for many reasons — for the state; for our region; and for anyone who loves the outdoors, which is most residents of the north state.

In exchange for an $18 surcharge on vehicle-registration fees, cars and trucks with California plates would have free entrance to state parks — no day-use fees, no parking charges. At the current entrance fees, two park trips a year would be enough to break even. That’s one long weekend touring the coast. Bring your out-of-town cousin to Burney Falls after that, and you’re way ahead.

Even north state residents who think Castle Crags is a fine landmark to admire from the freeway but wouldn’t think of scaling the Dome Trail have a lot to gain from a robust park system. Tourism is a large part of rural Northern California’s economy, and visitors don’t come to enjoy Redding’s July weather. They come for the lakes, the mountains and the natural wonders. The state parks are a critical piece of that puzzle.

What’s true for our region is no less the case for the state as a whole. Travel spending amounts to some $100 billion a year in California. They come for Disneyland and Chinatown, to be sure, but also for the redwood groves and the beaches, many of which are under the stewardship of the California State Parks.

The financing scheme of Prop. 21 is not ideal. There’s only a tenuous link between the fee and the parks (though most visitors do drive). It does amount to a back-door tax increase of about $200 million for the state’s general fund, which will be freed of the burden of financing the parks. And rather than another round of ballot-box budgeting, it’d be far better for the Legislature to do its job.

Even so, it’s a needed boost for the parks and, more critically, will provide stability for places that deserve preservation for the generations to come. The state’s recreational treasures and unique historic sites are a public heritage that should not be held hostage to union feuds, partisan battles and special-interest lobbying.

Proposition 21 isn’t the ideal solution, but it’s a workable one and a fair deal for Californians. We encourage voters to approach it with an open mind and an eye on the future — and to vote “Yes.”